John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Canadian oil sands transported via pipelines play a major role in supplying the energy needs of southern Illinois. Two weeks ago, I visited the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, and here is exactly what we saw. On Monday of this week, I visited three facilities also, but before I talk about those three facilities, Daniel Yergin yesterday in The Washington Post said this about the oil sands of Canada: ``Oil sands production in Canada today is 1.5 million barrels per day--more oil than Libya exported before its civil war. Canadian oil sands output could double to 3 million barrels per day by the beginning of the next decade. This increase, along with its other oil output, would make Canada a larger oil producer than Iran--becoming the world's fifth largest, behind Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and China.'' On Monday of this week, I visited three facilities in southern Illinois that utilize Canadian oil sands: Robinson refinery, the Patoka tank farm, and the Wood River refinery. Pipelines play a vital role in providing the energy needs for our daily lives. There are over 2.5 million miles of pipelines in this country: 175,000 miles of onshore and offshore hazardous liquid pipelines, mostly oil; 321,000 miles of onshore/offshore gas transmission and gathering lines; and 2,066,000 miles of natural gas distribution mains and service pipelines. Keystone XL would stretch about 1,700 miles. Again, going back to Yergin's article, he says: ``Though large''--he's referring to the Keystone XL pipeline. ``Though large, it would increase the length of the oil pipeline network in the United States by just 1 percent.'' Due to the high volumes of various liquids and gasses that must be transported, pipelines are the feasible mode of transportation. Imagine trying to transport this gas, crude oil on rail, on trucks, in our major waterways. In fact, just today there was a supertanker that was just hijacked by pirates on the high seas. That's the challenge of moving crude oil other than the pipeline system. We continue to import oil from countries that are not our closest friends. Further blocking of this pipeline development will only increase foreign oil imports from far-off places that are not our neighbors. This pipeline application is a jobs plan. Five major labor unions have endorsed this project, and there would be 20,000 construction jobs. As refineries expand, there's an estimated 100,000 new jobs as a whole. This Keystone XL pipeline is supported by the AFL-CIO and several other organized labor groups. In fact, they have started to run ads today in support of the pipeline and encouraging the Obama administration to approve it. Canadian oil sands are already creating jobs in my district in southern Illinois. Caterpillar, which my friend Joe Wilson is going to talk about too-- you'll see a larger mock than this. This is one of their major pickup trucks, lightly said. It's about four stories tall. The major place that this goes to is the oil sands in Canada. The tires, themselves, are two stories tall. The Caterpillar 797 is the largest truck they make. It's partially assembled in Decatur, Illinois. The truck is so large, final assembly must be done at the delivery site. The largest concentration of these Caterpillar trucks are in Alberta, Canada. These are manufactured in the good old U.S.A. These are great Midwestern manufacturing jobs that are directly tied to the oil sands development. At my last stop on Monday to the ConocoPhillips refinery, I just posed this basic question to the reporters who attended the press conference: Would you rather have the oil being refined in Wood River, Illinois, come from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, or Africa, or would you have that oil rather come from Canada? I think the answer is simple. So this administration must approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, as my colleagues know, Senator Kirk is strongly in support of moving high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Senator Durbin said the right things. We just want him now to lead on that issue for the importance of the State of Illinois. Another week I talked about the Savannah River site, nuclear waste right on the Savannah River, and highlighted the Senators there. And now I end up this week talking about California. This is not the only nuclear power plant that's on the Pacific Ocean. There's one in San Luis Obispo. I appreciate my colleagues allowing me this time to do my weekly process of talking about high-level nuclear waste. It's the law of the land, and we're going to continue to work hard until we get this done and we move and have a central repository for high-level nuclear waste in Las Vegas, in Nevada at Yucca Mountain. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is my third time on the floor to talk about high-level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. I started talking about Hanford, which is in Washington State, comparing it to the Yucca facility. In Hanford, 53 million gallons of nuclear waste; zero at Yucca. Nuclear waste is stored 10 feet underground in Hanford; waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground in Yucca. Waste 1,000 feet from the water table at Yucca; 250 feet from the water table in Hanford. At Yucca the nuclear waste will be 100 miles from the nearest river. At Hanford, it's 1 mile from the nearest river. So what are the Senators' positions on Yucca Mountain in Washington State and Oregon, knowing that we have 53 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste 1 mile from the Columbia River? Senator Cantwell is not supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Murray is supportive, at least in her public statements. Senator Wyden is not supportive. And Senator Merkley is silent. They should not be silent. A couple of weeks ago I then moved to my home State of Illinois and the decommissioned Zion nuclear power plant that still has high-level nuclear waste on site. Again, the same statistics for Yucca are there in a desert away from a river. Zion is on Lake Michigan. Zion has 65 casks containing 1,135 metric tons of nuclear waste, waste stored above ground 5 feet above the water table, 1,300 feet from Lake Michigan. And Wisconsin has two nuclear power plants also on Lake Michigan. So what do the senators from the two States say? Well, Senator Durbin is supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Kirk is supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Kohl is supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Johnson is still silent on Yucca Mountain. I imagine we'll know soon. Now we move to Georgia and South Carolina. Look at the difference here. Savannah River has 6,300 canisters of nuclear waste on-site. The waste is stored right below the ground. It is 0 to 160 feet above the water table, and it's right next to the Savannah River. Again, compare that to Yucca Mountain--no nuclear waste. Waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground, 1,000 feet above the water table, and 100 miles from the Colorado River. So where are these senators from Georgia and South Carolina? Well, Senator Isakson says ``We need to retain Yucca Mountain as our Nation's high-level waste repository.'' So he supports. Senator Chambliss says, ``We have long advocated that the Department of Energy immediately halt all actions to dismantle operations at Yucca Mountain.'' He supports. Senator Graham: ``No one should be required to pay for an empty hole in the Nevada desert.'' ``The decision by the Obama administration to close Yucca Mountain was ill-advised and leaves our Nation without a disposal plan for spent nuclear fuel or Cold War waste.'' That's what Hanford is, Cold War nuclear waste from our weapons sector. What does Senator DeMint say? ``Without Yucca Mountain, America will not have a safe and secure place to permanently store nuclear waste and instead waste will pile up at existing reactors.'' We will continue, and I will continue to come down on the floor and go through the Nation highlighting high-level nuclear waste all over this country when the Federal law under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 says we should have one site, and the law says that site is Yucca Mountain. And so as we continue to go through the States, hopefully some Senators will get off the dime and state their positions, culminating with 60 Senators in support as we move this forward, this Nation forward, to a more secure location for high-level nuclear waste away from lakes, away from rivers, away from the groundwater tables. There's no safer place on the planet than underneath the mountain in a desert, and that place is Yucca Mountain.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me thank my colleague for offering an amendment to the bill. A couple of things have been discussed during the debate. Obviously, she mentioned Kingston, Tennessee. What she has to remember is that was TVA. That was a government entity. That wasn't a natural disaster. That was a manmade disaster by a Federal Government, in essence, an agency. I've stated numerous times what this bill does. It sets a standard that the States have to comply with to get certified by the EPA. Of course, in that process, under Federal law currently and locally, there is an opportunity for comment. In addition, EPA, within the last week, announced that soon it will be seeking comments under the Notice of Data Availability, or what is referred to as NODA, on the adequacy of State programs--this would fall directly in this; that's why this amendment is duplicative--as well as the State's comments on EPA's proposed rule for coal ash. This NODA was not required by law and certainly was not the result of a statute. This is something that the agency is doing. While the study is found to be innocuous, it does have a cost to taxpayers and the agency, and so in that aspect. My colleague also is following this a little bit. The debate is coal ash, or fly ash, which is in impounded areas that we are now going to have some standards and liners, is used in recycling. It's used in road construction. It's used in building schools. The whole reason why we're here today is to ensure that the recycling sector can still do that if the EPA continues to label it as ``toxic,'' which does not meet the standard of a toxicity based upon an analysis. I love this, ``toxic sludge.'' You can pick up dirt, and there's toxic elements in the dirt. The question is: To what standard does it rise? And if it doesn't rise to the level of toxicity, then it's not considered. And that's what this debate is all about, allowing the recycling of this. And if we don't do this, all our landfills will be filled with coal ash, and then we'll have to build more landfills for municipal solid waste. So that's why I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia in this great piece of legislation. The administration has not issued a veto threat for this, and I expect it to be well received in the other Chamber once it moves over. With that, again, I ask my colleagues to reject the Jackson amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to again thank the ranking member for accepting this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from California because obviously there is a recognition that we have been talking, we have been trying to get some bipartisan support. As tough as that may seem in this Chamber and in this Congress, there is a recognition that we're trying. I think the ranking member gave us an ``atta boy'' just by allowing that voice vote on the manager's amendment, and I appreciate that. Part of this debate is that if States are allowing any type of waste to affect their constituents, don't you think that the States are going to get involved? If you use the Maryland example, Maryland has aggressively changed its own permitting processes based upon those experiences. So they've done it. Again, States are closer to their people. I can imagine the calls State reps and State senators got when that occurred. The basic bill says coal combustion residual which doesn't rise to the level of toxicity should be treated as that in liners and the like. That's really the debate we have. The EPA's technical assistance which was placed on the ranking member's committee's Web site mentions that this requirement could be implicitly inferred based upon the drafting of the bill. And I would just say on page 10, line 8, if the administrator determines that a State determination under this paragraph does not accurately reflect the needs for the management of coal combustion residuals in the State, the administrator may treat such State determination as a deficiency. And if it's a deficiency, then the EPA can then be involved. So we think that the issue that my colleague from California has raised has been addressed, and we look forward to debate of the further amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. My friend from Massachusetts has great rhetorical skills, and I have finally made it to the big time where I can do it as managing a bill and addressing amendments. He wasn't on the floor when we talked about the letter from the Governor of Virginia, who admits that this bill is going to force the State of Virginia to do more. It's because of this bill, he says,--and I quoted it before--that will require effort to implement in Virginia, such as regulatory amendments for conformance, and notifying and seeking EPA approval. So here is the Governor saying, We support this bill, and we know we're going to have to do more. I think that's positive. We're talking about how H.R. 2273 already includes structural integrity requirements that would allow only those facilities that are operating in a protective manner to continue to operate. Moreover, EPA has just completed a nationwide evaluation--I'm sure you're going to be happy to hear this, Mr. Markey--and in this evaluation they said that they have found none, zero, zip of these impoundments to be unsafe. Now, that's our own EPA. And we're glad that they're out. They're now checking these impoundment areas. I think a lot of this is a result of moving this bill and having now at least a standard for liners. I think from our testimony in subcommittee, liners are important. Liners are what we do in municipal solid waste. Liners are what we should do with coal combustion residuals. Well, this bill ensures that we have liners in the coal combustion residual ponds and facilities. So I think it's a very exciting time. It protects jobs. It helps for, obviously, the recycling of this in the industry sector. It helps save jobs. I think the amendment only hurts the passage and movement of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHIMKUS. To my friend from West Virginia, my response is that it does not. My amendment keeps that door to EPA alternative regulation closed and locked. The language the gentleman cites merely references law that is already on the books, as you heard in the general debate. Section 4010(c) of RCRA was enacted years ago to protect human health and the environment. My amendment merely clarifies that your bill does not change that.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This has been a good discussion and a good debate. With regard to the State border issue in our opening statements and comments, what we highlighted was the fact that current Federal law applies to hazardous material. CERCLA still applies, and EPA air quality standards still apply. Those laws are still in effect across States. If they are having an impact, EPA has authority under CERCLA and under RCRA, with imminent and substantial endangerment, to take action to force a remedy and cleanup. So our debate has always been that that's covered. Let's try to address the impoundment issue, the leaching issue, some standards. The Municipal Solid Waste laws are very, very successful. I would argue, if you want to talk about toxicity, there are probably many more chemicals in a municipal solid waste landfill than the 7 to 12 that you mentioned in coal combustion residual; and out of the 80 tests, the standards are much lower than the toxic standard under this test. So this is a focus on jobs. This is a focus on recycling. That sector is being ravaged just by the threat. This is an important bill, and I am glad my colleague from West Virginia has brought this to this Chamber. It has been a great debate, and I look forward to the amendment discussion. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Again to my colleague and friend from West Virginia, my amendment in no way reduces the administrator's authority to take into account facility capabilities. That authority is unchanged by both my amendment and your underlying bill.

Mr. SHIMKUS. You have a lot of time, but I would be happy to yield. But I do want to have time to close.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, that's why this new standard under the municipal and solid waste act will have liners for the first time. Right now, there are no liners. That's a better argument from past years, but this is a fix. This is a fix to that issue of leaching out. This is a fix to the possibility of the damage because we're going to be able to look at that in working in conjunction with the EPA, and of course, the people closest to the citizens are the State and local levels.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank the gentleman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to remind my colleagues that they will be interested to know the EPA noted in its June 2010 proposed regulation for coal combustion residuals that municipal solid waste rules provide an appropriate, comprehensive framework for regulating coal combustion residuals. That's from the EPA, the same EPA people say we're trying to gut. And I will continue to hold up the Veritas study that says, because of the recycling aspect of coal ash that goes into concrete, if you claim it to be toxic, you can no longer use coal ash in concrete for roads and for bridges and for buildings. That's the debate. And then when you tear down those structures, they would have to go in the toxic landfills. I also remind my colleagues that, from the spill, none of the spill cleanup went to toxic landfills. With that, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), the author of the legislation.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my friend from Virginia, he is correct that some States have laxer standards. In fact, your Governor sent us a letter in which I quote, ``H.R. 2273 is a realistic approach to dealing with CCR, although it would require effort to implement in Virginia.'' So our point is this is going to help those States that are weak to implement higher standards. That's just your Governor, but that's what he says in a letter to us in support of this legislation. If you label something ``toxic,'' it's not going to be reused, I can guarantee you, just because of the threat to the coal combustion residual community. The recyclers have no market. Who wants to build a school with concrete when the EPA may, 6 months or a year from now, say, That concrete is all toxic? So it's already had a negative impact in that job sector, and we've quoted studies both back and forth. The manager's amendment requires an assessment for all of these constituents that you identified. I would just highlight the fact that just because it's a constituent doesn't mean it's hazardous. This blue line is the hazardous level. The green is the amount. You could make the claim that there is hazardous material in Honey Nut Cheerios. The question is: What's the amount? And that's what this gets to is the amount. EPA has consistently said this doesn't raise to the standard of toxic. Even under the Clinton administration, when I served here, their EPA said it doesn't rise to the standard. The fear of EPA involvement is what's causing a problem in the recycling sector. Where is all this waste going to go? It's going to fill up the landfills. In 2 years, all the landfills will be filled up unless we continue to recycle this coal fly ash.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate the ranking member's accepting the amendment. We do think it improves the bill. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to my friend from Minnesota, I would quote the United Mine Workers letter that says: According to a June study, there's an estimate of the 183,000 to 363,000 possible job losses if we do not pass this bill. So for those who really want to effect, there will be-- I mean, this claim that this hurts the recycling when, then, you define coal combustion residuals as ``toxic'' is nonsensical. It really makes no sense. If you really want to encourage recycling, this bill protects the recycling industry. It protects coal, fly ash from going into concrete. If you label this ``toxic,'' which is what EPA's trying to do, that's very misleading. And I think even my friends on the other side are having a hard time grappling with what the EPA's trying to do because that's the direction we want to do, they want to move it to. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time, the manager's amendment that will be debated will talk about, for the first time, an analysis on run-on and runoff, which was the recommendation from the folks on your side of the aisle for us to consider, which we have now included. We'll take that up in the manager's amendment debate when we get to the amendment.